Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v. Proctor & Gamble Commercial Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that sua sponte dismissal of a claim without notice is permissible when an amendment could not cure the claim's flaws
• holding that an advertisement claiming that the advertiser’s detergent gets clothes whiter than chlorine bleach is “specific and measurable, not the kind of vague or subjective statement that characterizes puffery”
• holding that a company's statement that \Whiter is not possible\ was specific enough to be actionable, because, in context, it \invite[d] consumers to compare\ the company's product with products containing bleach
• concluding that “whiter is not possible” was actionable in false advertising claim where it “invites consumer to compare [product’s] whitening power” against competitors and was supported by studies comparing product with other detergents
• recognizing that a plaintiff is not permitted to “maintain a claim . . . by excising an isolated statement from a document and importing it into the complaint . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)
• recognizing that a plaintiff is not permitted to “maintain a claim . . . by excising an isolated statement from a document and importing it into the complaint . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).